Lumping and Bashing Jesus's Favorite Cookianity?

 Link to Facebook video about the parallels between Christianity and Narcissism.

That content creator also has a YouTube channel [link]  

In reply to her Facebook video, 
Logan Clark wrote: 

Which Christians g?

You be literally over generalizing

It's the same thing as me saying "all women" or "all men" also you probably have a shit experience with zealot Christians smfh

Some of them are good people

• 18h
• Like
• Reply

Ruth Chalk

Logan Clark ugh omg this. Like we can say it's all men we can say it's all Christians but what if we said it's women or black people or it's the lgbtq.....I love this double standard society has. If youre not bashing men and Christians then you're a bigot and a hater..... it's so wild to me... I can't understand it. I hate new world feminism and what it's done to people.

First, a note to Logan Clark: In that video, she specified which "Christianity" she was talking about. She specified the "Christianity" (or Christianities) which preach(es) X, Y, and Z. IF you know of any which preach nothing of the sort, then she's automatically not talking about that version. Although, I'd honestly be amazed if you discovered a version that isn't guilty of anything she called out. Also, at no point in that video ... did she say there aren't any good people who wear the label of "Christian". What you heard is not what she said. ----------------- Next, onto what Ruth Chalk said.

1. I agree w/ you about "Feminism" and how society treats men.

Mind you, "feminism" as an ideal ... does not denigrate men.
However, as the late George Carlin observed, it inevitably has devolved into that; 
and for exactly the same reasons Christianity would have been doomed from the start, even if its origins had been as noble as Christians imagine. 

2. Nothing in the video has anything to do with feminism; or, at least not the form of Feminism you described.
 I understand you are just using that as an example. But the video's creator isn't really guilty of that sort of thing. 
I'll explain why in a moment.

3. Christians keep speaking as if there is one specific package of attitudes and preachments that *IS* "Christianity".
They do this automatically, every time they say anything *about* "Christianity" without adding a qualifier like "my personal conceptualization of Christianity".

Listen to literally any church service or apologetics.
They all speak as if Christianity is one very specific project.
  They all speak as if they are qualified to speak on behalf of that project.

So when a skeptic says "Ok. Fine. Let's talk about that project ..." ... Christians /Ghasp! and exclaim "Typical of skeptics. Always speaking as if Christianity is one specific thing in the world".

Meanwhile, it's very common on the internet to stumble across Christians who are acting like the points made do not apply to their version.

However, in most cases that I've seen, the points being made (by skeptics) absolutely do apply to the version of Christianity which an "offended" person identifies with.

Just as importantly, on the rare occasion that it only applies to most other versions ... the complaint about being misrepresented is still nonsensical.

How so?

Because nobody forced your church, or sect, or personal interpretation to self-label w/ a label that automatically lumps your version in with all the other versions.

"Christianity" is a Public Domain label that countless rival startup companies use for their religious business and their ideological cookie.

But then Christians act offended whenever they stumble into a conversation they weren't even personally invited to ...
where a dissatisfied customer is venting (in their own virtual space) about the addictive drugs (and shards of broken glass) coming from a (possibly) different distributor.

Nobody forced yours to use the same company name (and cookie name; and nearly identical packaging) as anyone else.

Nor is it reasonable to act as if 'the only time abuses should be called out is when a skeptic specifies an individual or denomination'.

 Granted, sometimes the context warrants such specificity. But with the sorts of issues listed in the video we're responding to, ... no. This isn't one of those times. Because the points she is making are the normal preachments and behaviors of the larger domain. And those are also found throughout Bibles.  

If you feel so misrepresented, then take that up with
a.) yourselves
b.) all the other versions who keep claiming to speak for "Christianity".
and
c.) the god you imagine maneuvered you into that paradoxical position in the first place. 

Don't get upset with people who are merely responding to the "Christianity" that they've personally experienced (or otherwise observed).

It's also interesting how all the different rival "Christianities" are all "(The) Christianity" ... whenever you all want to share credit for whatever good things have ever been said or done by people in RIVAL factions under that umbrella.
So then you'll say "Look at the THANKS that HUMANITY owes **US**!"

But then as soon as the topic shifts to horrible things said and done by Christians, you switch to "Those aren't even real Christians. Why do skeptics keep trying to lump us all together?".

You all suffer from bouts of strategic amnesia, every time you regret lumping yourselves in with each other.
But give it 5 minutes, and you'll go right back to doing it. With all of this in mind, here's what you're doing: [notice I didn't say "intending". I'm only talking about the function; not the intention] You are perpetuating a social ecosystem where many people still feel like it would be 'unfair' or 'unkind' to call out actual abusive shit that happens on a GRAND SCALE (so common that those abusive mindfucks have always been the norm) within the larger domain of "Christianity". I understand the desire to feel good about yourself whenever you wear that mental superhero cape out in public. Thus, it would be ... conducive to your interests, if society at large was associating that "T" (of your religious culture's celebrated ✟orture device) with "Terrific" and not "Terror". I once had that very same conversation with a member of the KKK who said the KKK is all about love. Yes, it is technically possible to re-imagine a vastly improved mission statement and sentiment to ascribe to that banner. But my point was: Don't expect respect (for that project). Now, is it all the same game? On the larger scale, it is. Why would I say so? Because the Christian moderates are providing cover for the extremists; by perpetuating social taboos against calling out religious abuse. Meanwhile, progressives are white-washing the history, and hiding the toxins they share in common with all the other versions. They're also working overtime to do Public Relations for the branding; branding which includes the label ("Christianity") and the icon (of "Jesus") that they damn well know the worst versions use to destroy lives; including: * Recruitment, * hijacking minds, * hijacking political systems, * profiteering, * shaping societal values (to their own selfish advantage), and * colonizing across the globe. As a function of Damage Control, persons personally invested in that project ... publicly shame anyone who calls it out. Just as importantly, think about how fantastically hypocritical it is for any "Christian" to object to being unfairly stereotyped ... as a member of a religious culture that habitually unfairly stereotypes atheists, and all rival "Theist" factions, and every other sociodemographic they are trying to 'set themselves apart from'. Hell, most of you even have a word that lumps every demonized demographic into one devalued people group; called "The World" (said with dripping disdain and literal condemnation). So you can save your pearl clutching for church; because pretty much every skeptic outside of those walls ... realizes how theatrical that is. In fact, this is yet another way members of your religious culture emulate a clinically Narcissistic abuser; by a.) being abusive (and/or acting as flying monkeys for the abusers you empower), b.) listening and lurking for complaints (often overheard in conversations you weren't personally invited to), and then c.) throwing yourselves to the ground as victims.

Meanwhile, as a biological male who often is unfairly lumped in with actually bad men, I appreciate it whenever any woman wants to defend me from that. However, it's not really fairly equitable with defending "Christians". Being a "Christian" isn't something people are 'born as'. Nor is it a type of person. It's just a make-believe badge of moral authority; as make-believe deputies of a make-believe cosmic sheriff. Granted, nobody ever freely chooses to become a "Christian". That's actually one of the points being addressed by the video we find ourselves responding to. But what keeps captured minds there? The selfishly emotional choice to avoid honestly thinking about it. Just as importantly, Christianity is racism. It's an artificial social construct that segregates members from and ABOVE everyone who isn't a member of that sociodemographic; such that the lives of members of that people group have exclusively superior value compared to everyone else's.

Just as importantly, the "Jesus" of gospel lore was a racist. He 'othered', demonized, and devalued everyone who wasn't a properly religious member of Judaism-themed religion. He looked forward to the "day and the hour" of 'trash day', when "Father" would take out the trash. That's when Psycho Dad was "prophesied" to violently exterminate every outsider's life, because outsiders' lives did not matter.